LAST EDITED ON 12-08-14 AT 07:31 PM (EST)Great analysis as usual. I agree with you that Missy's edit is very confusing in a lot of ways, which is giving me pause. I remarked earlier that I was wondering if Missy was going to become our villain (because of Baylor) but then they backed off of that stuff again. But now Missy's mothering has popped up again, and it makes her look bad.
I think, if Missy doesn't win, I don't think Keith is the answer, however. I mean, I can kind of see it in a lot of ways, but they have gone way too far out of their way to show Keith being a Dumb Player. They didn't necessarily have to show Keith and Jeremy's falling out pre-merge (and it just made Keith look dumb). They didn't necessarily have underline the "Stick to the plan" moment (although they probably had to show it). If Keith is our winner, I think our closest parallel would be someone like Bob or maybe even Fabio, the likable non-schemer who won because they are likable. But neither of those edits even make much sense for Keith, as he hasn't had many Fabio-esque "This hillbilly is smarter than they think" confessionals. To me, Keith feels like someone we're supposed to be happy he goes super-far but okay when he doesn't make Final 3.
I think Natalie's edit reminds me a lot of Sophie's edit in a lot of ways. I remember during South Pacific feeling like, "I really like Sophie, I wish they would show her more" and remember a lot of other people ranking her fairly favorably at the time too... Even though all she ever did in each episode was diss Brandon and make general strategic observations. Looking back on it, I think they hid Sophie a little because the editors weren't sure how people would take her dryness and worried she would come off as too abrasive.
I think, with Natalie being a Twinnie, they're taking a similar stance. Step off the gas just a little, so we don't get overloaded by her Twinnie-ness. They can't let her have a dominant Kim or Boston Rob edit because 1) that's not how her game shook out, and 2) they would risk us getting tired of her. Just let her guide public opinion during the episodes and that's it. She disappeared a little around the merge (like Sophie) but emerged a little later. Her condemnation of Jon's personality in this past episode reminded me a lot of Sophie's criticism of Cochran at the beginning of his boot episode. It was like, "Oh, we're not suppose to like Jon now?" for me. It's always interesting who they pick to sway public opinion.
Even though I hated the Twinnies coming into this season, and didn't want them to be cast, I suddenly find myself rooting for Natalie. Which is something I find very, very suspicious.
The only knock against Natalie fitting the Sophie mold is that there isn't an Albert character for Natalie to kick around and demonstrate why she's superior. My gut is still saying Natalie doesn't win, but I can contextualize how her editing makes sense now. Downplay the character who could look controversial to people.
The Jon thing is a bit of a mess in general and is so up and down, I think dismissing him and/or crowning him would both be legitimate conclusions. The Natalie and wine scenes were indeed meant to knock Jon down quite a bit in our eyes... But they ended up giving him the final word during Tribal Council! It was like a presidential candidate flubbing a question but closing strongly. The whole episode I was thinking, "Jon sure is being a tool now" but when he started linking the wine thing to his dad at TC, I was like, "How can I stay mad at that guy?"
I don't know if Jon wins or not but I really like that they've given him a more three-dimensional edit than the usual Survivor contestant. I'm wondering if they thought about Tony's characterization, and how people were really talking about his win afterwards... You know, about how flawed he is as a player or the mistakes he made.
Maybe we've moved past the golden Greek god days of Survivor winners (see: Rob, Boston) and they want to present someone more fallible?